If We Cannot Reject Woke Premises (Like Equality), We Must Suffer Their Logical Conclusions

This paper is going around: “A Pediatrician’s Manifesto for the Modernization of Gender Medicine“, by Erica Li. About the “queering” of medicine. The author is against it, as am I, as are you, dear reader, and as would anybody who loves Reality would be.

Alas, right near the beginning of this demonstration of the madness of “queering” she announces anxiously that she is a good person: “It is crucial to clarify that I am a steadfast supporter of LGBT civil rights,” she says.

Crucial.

No, sorry. This will not work. She has lost the war right there. It is pointless to read further and discover the woke depredations of medicine. Because she supports them—without realizing it.

One of those “rights” it was so crucial for her to avow is the “right” to have quacks butcher and drug kids, to the delight of “queers” and perverts, because of the false theory that “gender” is infinitely malleable, and Reality false. Another “right” is the open and accepted teaching sodomy to kids.

Another “right” is to define yourself as your “sexual orientation”, such as being a “minor attracted person”. Our most beneficent government has ensured that “sexual orientations” may not be discriminated against.

Since Li says it is crucial for her to support these “rights”, she must acknowledge queers (their own word) have a better and faster way to get them—including all the “rights” inherent in “queering” medicine. They can secure those “rights” faster and more efficiently than her tepid “support”.

Li says “I strongly advocate for high-quality Modern medical care for sexual minorities.” But “I reject the overmedicalization of children propagated by many gender activists”.

This fails. It fails because medicalizing and cutting up children are just what gender “activists” think is modern medical care.

Li’s arguments fail because they are self-contradictory. You cannot be for the “rights” and against the goal of those “rights”. It is not consistent. The woke are smarter. They see this.

They see the logical endpoint, and they push for it. And you must surrender to their argument, eventually, dear con-servatives, because you have granted their central premise.

If you think the perverted mutilation of children is wrong then the only consistent position is to be against lgbtqwerty+ “rights”. There is no other way.

The same genre of mistake was made by the nice folks who argued in a well-publicized paper for the superiority of merit in science, against woke DIE quotas.

Those same authors also said they believed “diversity” and “inclusion” are important goals.

Like Li, they lost the argument right there. If you want to DIE, the woke have a superior way to reach DIE. They can get there quicker and more efficiently. And they don’t have to compromise with merit. Merit is what holds back the DIE. Merit, by definition, is the opposite of diversity and inclusion. The woke, again, are smart enough to see this.

The only way to win is to say you are against Diversity & Inclusion. Can you say that? Can you?

We are so far gone that people who want to save science, God bless them, do not see how saturated they are in Enlightenment thinking, and neither does Li. And, as it turns out, neither did I.

I was talking on this subject to Anon, and it was Anon’s idea that the Great Barrington Declaration, of which I was an early signer, suffers to a degree from this same fault. I did not see it at the time, to my shame, but I see it now.

Right away in January of 2020, I was screaming my head off that the only solution was not to panic about covid. I kept up my ranting that our most loving government should stand there, and not do something. Because everything they were doing was making things worse. Indeed, some friends and I started writing this book beginning April 2020: The Price of Panic: How the Tyranny of Experts Turned a Pandemic into a Catastrophe (it came out that October, before the vaccine panic).

Yet, as said, I was one of the early signers of the Great Barrington declaration. Which argued for “focused protection” of the most vulnerable.

Which is granting the premise—no different in effect than Li and the science-merit folks—that it is right for the government to take action by locking some people down. And not realizing the government had a better, faster, more efficient path to “action” (tyranny) than I allowed.

I should have been consistent and rejected all calls for top-down Expert “solutions”. Especially at that late date, when it was clear to any who cared to think about it that “solutions” were the problem.

Since I know how easy it is to screw up, I have some sympathy for people like Patrick Deneen, who wrote Regime Change: Toward a Postliberal Future. Charles Haywood opens his pitiless review of that book like this:

Vladimir Lenin taught that “he who says A must say B.” He was correct, but Patrick Deneen has not listened. Deneen says A, that our Regime, our ruling class, is destructive and evil. But he then refuses to say B, that the Regime is therefore wholly odious and illegitimate, and before any new system is possible, it must be destroyed. Instead, Deneen’s response to A is magical thinking. When the people peacefully complain enough, you see, the Regime will dismantle itself voluntarily and hand over power to a new ruling class, which will hold and implement opposite views on every matter under the sun. This absurd fantasy, even when cushioned within much fancy philosophy, harms rather than advances the postliberal project.

Deneen grants that premise that “racism” (by whites) is a problem. That being so, the Regime has a far superior path to correcting that “racism” than Deneen.

The lesson is clear enough. Either we reject all woke (a.k.a. liberal) premises, or must suffer the fate of the consequences of those premises.

Update Another example, this time about the administrative state. If we can't reject the central premise that Experts know best and should be in charge, then we are doomed to the consequences. Read this article.

Subscribe or donate to support this site and its wholly independent host using credit card click here. Or use the paid subscription here. Cash App: $WilliamMBriggs. For Zelle, use my email: matt@wmbriggs.com, and please include yours so I know who to thank.